By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
U.S. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder isn't backing down from his decision to hold public trials in New York of five accused 9/11 terrorists.
His decision, however, is going to expose the Obama administration to nonstop criticism from the families of some victims, Republican politicians and many other Americans who don't want the trials to occur on U.S. soil.
They would rather see military tribunals handle the matters. And there's the rub.
As Holder puts it accurately, the country has a history of putting accused terrorist on trial in America and, in fact, in the United States.
So Holder has appealed to the American spirit of justice -- and, frankly, of our pride -- to go ahead with his plan.
"We need not cower in the face of this enemy," Holder said Wednesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is ready, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready."
In the end, Holder has to balance the worry that the trial could turn into a farce (as it certainly could) versus the ability to show the world that America can successfully prosecute accused terrorists in civilian trials.
It's a tricky balancing act, one that will be difficult to pull off, no matter how confident Holder seems now.
Delicious
Digg
Missing most of the larger points
First, the implication that "justice" is served by a civilian court and not by a military tribunal is flawed. Justice is most certainly served in a military trial which follows the rule of law that apply to war.
Is KSM a common criminal or a terrorist?. Do we confer US citizen rights on terrorists? What do our troops do in the field when they caputure somebody? Do they have to read them their Miranda rights? Do they have to have an attorney present? A trial by their peers, who is that exactly? All of these issues have been taken care of, by the rule of law for war situations by the use of military tribunals. If you cannot see the difference between enemy combantants and citizens of the US that are common criminals, and how and why they are to be treated differently but each following the rules of law for each particular situation, then you must be so radical that you would qualify for a czar position in the Obama administration.
Remember Moussaoui trial?
It took years to finish and Moussaoui (aka the 20th hijacker) did everything in his power to turn it into a circus. YT is right this could happen again.
Here's hoping Holder and his staff studied the lessons learned from the Moussaoui epic and are resolved to not to repeat the same mistakes.
Let's see ...balancing is not required.....it is chosen
1) As Holder puts it accurately, the country has a history of putting accused terrorist on trial in America and, in fact, in the United States.
2) So Holder has appealed to the American spirit of justice -- and, frankly, of our pride -- to go ahead with his plan.
3) In the end, Holder has to balance the worry that the trial could turn into a farce (as it certainly could) versus the ability to show the world that America can successfully prosecute accused terrorists in civilian trials.
4) It's a tricky balancing act, one that will be difficult to pull off, no matter how confident Holder seems now.
1) Holder, who promoted the idiotic pardoning by Clinton of the notorious FALN Puerto Rican terrorists, and whose law firm defended a litany of islamic terrorist suspects is the right guy to make a decision about where these battlefield captured combatants should stand trial????
Please..... That decision was made by Obama when he took these suspects away from the tradiditionl authority chain (Secretary of Defense) and layed it in Holder's lap.
It is one thing to try domestic residents who are suspected of terrorist acts (The Blind Sheik, Timothy McVeigh)in civilian courts.....it is entirely another thing to pretend that battlefield captured terrorists deserve the same rights and priviliges as you and I. They do not.
2) I will suggest just the opposite: Our spirit of justice and fairness mandates a military tribunal......which admittedly should have taken place years ago....to keep the issue from becoming what they have made it.....a political sideshow.
3) The American public, in spite of the left wing zealots of the media, are emphatically disinterested in what "the rest of the world thinks" about a public civil trial.....They are interested in outcomes and expediency. They want the loved ones feelings and memories allowed to move past this event....not broadcast live to the world.
4) Holder got embarrassingly schooled by Lindsey Graham on the floor of the senate yesterday when he was unable to cite a single case supporting this unprecedented, stupid, political choice.
He may be as confident as he can be....but he's still wrong ...Michael Moore is confident in his beliefs too.....and no one is more consistently wrong than Moore.....except Obama.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
the biggest issue with
the biggest issue with Holder's so-called decision is that it isn't legally his decision to make.
The Sec Def is the one who was holding this terrorist. The Attorney General is an equal cabinet member to the Sec Def. The AG cannot order the Sec Def to turn over a military enemy combatant without the order of the POTUS.
So either Obama is lying, yet again, and he did make this decision or he is illegally allowing his AG to order the Sec Def to turn over military combatants without proper legal authority...
but of course I shouldnt expect the media to point out wrong doing of Barack "Kinda like God" Obama
How about we listen to people with skin in the game...
...instead of pontificating pundits--the families of the victims.
Some members of the group were on Fox. Watch here.
Ms. Burlingame is a former attorney, and wrote this column in May about Obama's meeting in February with family members.
Take a look back at the AG's history with the Clinton Administration in this National Review editorial after the announcement of his appointment.
Lastly, here's some right thinking from Pat Buchanan on the New York trial.